Age 11 rankings..

jsmoke

jsmoke

jsmoke

Soldato
Joined
17 Jun 2012
Posts
11,259
Good or bad idea?

I can see positives and negatives, back in my day, we sat one test in our first year of high school which determined what level of class you would be in. I think that was a bad system, as all it needs is for an 11 year to have a bad day or be underdeveloped and hence do badly in their test, although this system seems to be a bit more stretched out.

Seems like traditional Tory stereotyping though. Labeling people is a powerful way to keep people under control. What do you think, do these people really care about the young or is this just 'we had to suffer boarding school so you'll suffer also and we'll prepare you for the dole queue nice and early'
 
While I do feel it's a bit harsh to pigeon-hole kids in such a way, especially at a young age when there can be quite a difference in level of development, at the same time I can see that it has it's benefits. After all, is it really fair to stick the "smart" kids who want to work hard and do well in the same class as the time wasters who'll take up 90% of the teacher's time just making sure they behave themselves?
 
If it leads to an increase in information as to how your child is performing then I am all for it. Getting that sort of information out of primary teachers is like pulling teeth some times.

We have just got the Year 2 SATs results for my daughter, which is useful information to see where she is at and what areas need more work, a little more granularity on that wouldn't hurt at all.
 
do_ron_ron said:
A half way house to the 11 plus. From personal and educational experience far too young to be labelling any child and limiting their future potential.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. Children do better when they are streamed and put with children of similar levels of ability. Else the brighter ones are slowed down, and the dumber ones feel dejected for not being able to keep up.

In a large facility, streaming works very well. Children can move from stream to stream as is necessary, and reviews should occur, as mistakes no doubt happen, due to stress etc. at exam time.

Streaming of classes helps everyone.
 
splitting children into 'sets' at school is stupid. One kid has just as much potential as the next, they just need motivation and teaching to use it.
 
MooMoo444 said:
splitting children into 'sets' at school is stupid. One kid has just as much potential as the next, they just need motivation and teaching to use it.
Click to expand...

No, it absolutely isn't stupid. Children who can and do achieve more should be treated that way, and given additional opportunities. They should not be held back by a class forced to move at the pace of the slowest student.

Sets (or streams, whatever term you prefer) should be fluid though - children should be moved up and down appropriately to their level of achievement.
 
There are a million and one reasons why somebody doesn't test well on the day, by limiting the children who make it through the top of our education system to only those that sit tests well, we are massively limiting the skills of our populace.

I nearly failed my A-Levels, for the most part I should have been "written off". As it was, I got lucky in that my university a) let me in and b) brought out my confidence. I got a 1st, then a masters and then a PhD. It's only one little example but it's pertinent.

We need to stop labelling children as good or bad when it comes to long term academics (nothing wrong whatsoever in saying a specific piece of work is poor or good, but we need to stop using tests to determine the overall pathway of our children's development). It's easier said than done, but there needs to be far better recognition of those that don't fit in to the traditional "learn by rote and regurgitate facts on command" clever person.
 
This kind of proposal is tragically outdated, our entire education system needs an overhaul - but first we need to be honest about what we (as a society & those who are parents) want out of an education system,

Do you want a population of intelligent critical thinkers?, keeping the natural desire to learn? who question authority when it's justified?.

Or

Do you want a population of people just smart enough to work in the offices/factories or retail, submissive to authority & passive in the face of oppression?.

Ken Robinson puts it well in his numerous talks.

http://sirkenrobinson.com/
 
AJK said:
No, it absolutely isn't stupid. Children who can and do achieve more should be treated that way, and given additional opportunities. They should not be held back by a class forced to move at the pace of the slowest student.

Sets (or streams, whatever term you prefer) should be fluid though - children should be moved up and down appropriately to their level of achievement.
Click to expand...

Agreed, iirc, my year group at school only got split into "sets" for maths, there was a top and a bottom set. The top set were then given the maths exam GCSE paper where the questions were harder and you could achieve up to A*, whereas the plebs got given a paper where the maximum grade they could achieve was a C, obviously with much easier questions.

When I first got graded in a maths class I got put in the bottom set (I don't know why, I was more than able to do top set maths). After a month of acing everything in sight, the maths teacher moved me straight up to the top set where the work was at my level (he fumbled an excuse saying that obviously my work was excellent and that I can go to the top group, however I have since always suspected that it was an administration error!).

However, I felt compeltely de-graded by being put in the bottom set, effectively labelled as a thick-o and bullied a bit by people I knew who got put in the top set, so I know how it must feel to some children. But I can also see why it would be entirely appropriate to segregate classes by ability, as I felt completely hindered and slowed down by the less able children whilst in the bottom set.
 
Last edited:
My school had everyone in classes simply made up of there form in year 7. They used the entire year, not just a single test, to determine what 'set' you'd be put into. Point is there has to be room to move people up and down and to not prevent them from trying higher level exams if they can show they are able. Worked great with the core subjects. Of course the rest of them didn't get that approach so you moved along at a slow pace.
 
physichull said:
However, I felt compeltely de-graded by being put in the bottom set, effectively labelled as a thick-o and bullied a bit by people I knew who got put in the top set, so I know how it must feel to some children. But I can also see why it would be entirely appropriate to segregate classes by ability, as I felt completely hindered and slowed down by the less able children whilst in the bottom set.
Click to expand...

Was the opposite when I was at school. We'd get mocked for being in the top set, called a swot, spof, etc etc.

Guess it shows the class of the area where the top set pupils are in the minority :(
 
AJK said:
Sets (or streams, whatever term you prefer) should be fluid though - children should be moved up and down appropriately to their level of achievement.
Click to expand...
We had streams back in the Eighties, they were dropped as the Political Correctness loons decided it was discriminatory to stupid kids :rolleyes:

They appeared to work OK for the time, clever kids were pushed, stupid kids were given crayons, however nobody moved between streams. You might get dropped into a lesser exam, but over the school year nobody suddenly got cleverer than they were before.

With hindsight we were not pushed as hard as the kids today appear to be, and I'm sure with more resources most of us in the top stream could have done far better.
 
Growing up in Hong Kong, ever since nursery school children are ranked (I have a photo of me getting 2nd place somewhere when I was 4), you even get a toy for the top 3 spot !

In primary school up to the age of 18 you take exams every year, you are ranked by subject, and then a total average. The class however are mixed, the better scored students are not all put in 1 class but are all mixed, each class has 40 children, average 20 boys and 20 girls..how do I know? At assembly we are lined up and paired up, shortest at the front (Political correctness? Get out!)

I didn't mind it, I saw it as a challenge to better myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom